Further Reading

Government spectrum should be shared, not hoarded, Presidential council says.

The proposal is the result of an advisory put out by the Obama administration way back in July 2012, which recommended that 1000MHz of federal spectrum be opened to alleviate some of the pressures in the industry relating to the scarcity of spectrum. Today's proposal deals specifically with spectrum between 3550MHz and 3650MHz, and it seeks comment on adding another 50MHz on top of that, expanding the band to 3700MHz.

In the program, a wider band of spectrum would be shared by multiple licensees rather than divvying spectrum up into smaller and smaller bands that sit dead in areas where they're unused. “Because the federal use in this band occurs primarily around the coasts, it is a great opportunity for intensive wireless broadband use on a shared basis,” wrote the FCC in a blog post.

The FCC explained in its press release today that access to the band would be shared among three tiers of licensees: “federal and non-federal incumbents, priority access licensees, and general authorized access users.” The program would also require a responsive database for managing access to the spectrum:

Federal and non-federal incumbents would be protected from harmful interference from Citizens Broadband Radio Service users. Targeted priority access licenses would be made available for a variety of uses, including mobile broadband. General authorized access use would be permitted in a reserved amount of spectrum and on an opportunistic basis for a variety of consumer or business oriented purposes, including advanced home wireless networking.

Access and operation within the 3.5 GHz band would be managed by a spectrum access system, a dynamic database or databases that incorporates technical and functional requirements necessary to manage access and operations across the three tiers.

Wireless advocacy groups generally applauded the move, saying that the sharing of spectrum would promote small-cell technologies, which operate wireless networks for very small geographic locations. The Wireless Innovation Alliance said in a press release that going through with the proposal would “benefit countless stakeholders, including public safety, small businesses, educators, and consumers through improved wireless broadband access.”

The FCC also announced today that it was moving ahead with the second phase of its plan to connect rural America with better access to broadband and voice service. “Over five years, Phase II of the Connect America Fund will provide nearly $9 billion to expand broadband in rural areas,“ the FCC wrote in a press release. Through Phase II, incumbent carriers will be offered subsidies to build out or improve their networks, and if they decline, the FCC will open the subsidies to other carriers through a competitive bidding process.

This is C-band, and near military radar. I can't see this working well across the US. Maybe OK in certain pockets of the country.

C-band TVRO already has such problems.

The FCC studied this extensively, and it's generally not going to be a problem because the system will require database-driven frequency assignments (Spectrum Access System), the military usage can dynamically pull channels when and where they need it - triggering GAA usage to change channels if necessary.

This is the second major step the FCC has taken towards more usage of existing fallow spectrum through sharing rules. The first was the TV Whitespaces Database, though the SAS takes it even further (in a good way).

As a fixed wireless access provider, I wholeheartedly welcome another 150MHz of spectrum that doesn't require fighting with hundreds of home routers for a decent noise floor.

In the future, as database driven spectrum sharing proves itself, the current "Spectrum Crunch" will be lessened if not eliminated - because the "Crunch" is really caused by the large swaths of fallow licensed spectrum which aren't being used.

Note that the rules are not yet finalized - they've only agreed on the general framework for the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, which will come out in the near future. At that point, comments and feedback are taken before the final rules are decided.

This is C-band, and near military radar. I can't see this working well across the US. Maybe OK in certain pockets of the country.

C-band TVRO already has such problems.

The FCC studied this extensively, and it's generally not going to be a problem because the system will require database-driven frequency assignments (Spectrum Access System), the military usage can dynamically pull channels when and where they need it - triggering GAA usage to change channels if necessary.

This is the second major step the FCC has taken towards more usage of existing fallow spectrum through sharing rules. The first was the TV Whitespaces Database, though the SAS takes it even further (in a good way).

As a fixed wireless access provider, I wholeheartedly welcome another 150MHz of spectrum that doesn't require fighting with hundreds of home routers for a decent noise floor.

In the future, as database driven spectrum sharing proves itself, the current "Spectrum Crunch" will be lessened if not eliminated - because the "Crunch" is really caused by the large swaths of fallow licensed spectrum which aren't being used.

Note that the rules are not yet finalized - they've only agreed on the general framework for the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, which will come out in the near future. At that point, comments and feedback are taken before the final rules are decided.

Seriously, you think this dynamic frequency allocation will work? All it takes is for some hacked system to not obey the request, then the military will declare the system as QRM.

It left out areas around the three Major DOD SUA, basically China Lake, NTTR, and UTTR. Mostly China Lake would be effected, but these SUA are used by all branches occasionally.

I acquired a C-band LNB for the Indian subcontinent, which is a little higher in frequency than the rest of the world, then ran it on a Satcom spectrum analyzer outside a base. Man does the military use C-band. If this 3.5 GHZ band is ever opened, it is going to need some significant filtering.

Seriously, you think this dynamic frequency allocation will work? All it takes is for some hacked system to not obey the request, then the military will declare the system as QRM.

The FCC's decisions don't make it any easier or harder for people bent on ignoring them to continue ignoring them.

In other words, if J Random Hacker wants to use unlicensed spectrum, the fact that the FCC has declared that spectrum to be SAS or statically allocated is irrelevant. J Random Hacker's job is no harder or easier as a result.

Seriously, you think this dynamic frequency allocation will work? All it takes is for some hacked system to not obey the request, then the military will declare the system as QRM.

The FCC's decisions don't make it any easier or harder for people bent on ignoring them to continue ignoring them.

In other words, if J Random Hacker wants to use unlicensed spectrum, the fact that the FCC has declared that spectrum to be SAS or statically allocated is irrelevant. J Random Hacker's job is no harder or easier as a result.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think that in practice, once equipment that operates in the band is available, there will be a lot more people with the means and motive to "hack" that equipment so that it will operate without regard to "higher priority" licencees' needs.

If it's difficult to override the equipment's check, then that's one thing. But if due to bug or a "testing feature" it's relatively simple to override it, then I think it could be a very genuine problem. Not skilled hackers, per se, but just people who's gear doesn't work and they look up how to make it work on Youtube.

Boberz has it right when he's talking about fixed wireless broadband (home internet for areas that don't have wired service available). The fact that it's used for high power radar makes it a non-starter for phones nationwide. The reciever on your phone that's designed to pick up a signal of a few watts would react very badly to being hit by a search radar transmitting tens or hundreds of thousands of times more power.

Seriously, you think this dynamic frequency allocation will work? All it takes is for some hacked system to not obey the request, then the military will declare the system as QRM.

The FCC's decisions don't make it any easier or harder for people bent on ignoring them to continue ignoring them.

In other words, if J Random Hacker wants to use unlicensed spectrum, the fact that the FCC has declared that spectrum to be SAS or statically allocated is irrelevant. J Random Hacker's job is no harder or easier as a result.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think that in practice, once equipment that operates in the band is available, there will be a lot more people with the means and motive to "hack" that equipment so that it will operate without regard to "higher priority" licencees' needs.

If it's difficult to override the equipment's check, then that's one thing. But if due to bug or a "testing feature" it's relatively simple to override it, then I think it could be a very genuine problem. Not skilled hackers, per se, but just people who's gear doesn't work and they look up how to make it work on Youtube.

You can hack the firmware of 2.4GHz wifi routers to use the frequencies not allowed in the US. If the hardware is capable, it I'd just a matter of hacking the software.

The FCC should just concentrate of refarming the TV spectrum. They need to limit it aggressively and once and for all. We simply can be buying new phones every time the free up a little spectrum.

So there's a really unhealthy understanding in our national psyche about what government is and isn't. Government isn't a monolithic autonomous structure that stands apart from society. Government is a structure created by society, that we use to organize society.

When you use phrases like "a precious resource that belongs to the government" (which is also factually dubious) you reinforce these incorrect and unhelpful misconceptions.

Still will end up being licensed to companies who may or may not choose to deploy hardware, charge massive non-refundable fees for site surveys and other unpublished costs, and nonexistent tech support.

Why not license end users individually, like GMRS? If you're already requiring location-aware radios, what's the big deal if a group of people get together and create a mesh network to get to an ISP's tower? If you see unlicensed users, query the radio's GPS and head over to shut 'em down.

The 1934 communications act specifically says the airwaves belong to the people, so why not let us use them?

I like this idea and think it is heading in the right direction. Untimely, all radio spectrum should be dynamically allocated to the most important use in the area at the time. I think that technologies like Software Defined Radio and Spread Spectrum will help to make this feasible.

I guess the ultimate question is who will operate the base stations and back haul and how will they get paid?

<blockquote>Over five years, Phase II of the Connect America Fund will provide nearly $9 billion to expand broadband in rural areas,“ the FCC wrote </blockquote>In the interests of efficiency, the FCC will just turn the money over to Comcast, who will know what to do with it.